High fg to tie in ot ruled high and out. Not reviewable because of the way it was ruled was the explanation. Replay from underneath sure looked like it was inside the upright...
Indiana just got jobbed.
- Thread starter czxqa
- Start date
I was bummed that Indy lost, but the kick did look slightly wide to me from the only angle that gave us somewhat of a decent view,
It was tough to see for sure but the fact that they wouldn't even look at it when they'll spend 15 minutes trying to figure out if someone's elbow hit the ground in the 3rd qtr just doesn't seem right to me...
There wasn't much doubt that the Field Goal was good.
But, it went thru the uprights slightly above the top of the uprights.
I think the rule should be changed to allowing a change to the
call on the field when there is conclusive evidence to the contrary,
regardless of how high the ball is kicked.
The PAC-12 doesn't typically like the B1G.
The only reliable view is the one from behind. It was a perfect angle. The view from underneath was from directly in the middle of the goal posts. A terrible, misleading angle. The camera from there is like trying to determine if something was a TD from a camera on the ten yard line. Makes no sense.
Duke never would have made it to OT, if the crossbar didn't help them out
with a nice bounce on one of their Field Goal attempts during regulation time.
Or a camera pointed straight up along the length of each that gives a sight line straight up both uprights for replays. They could be small enough with the technology we have to not interfere with play and still capture the shot needed...
Did we just catch you watching worthless bowls?:stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
Fg was wide, clear as day from the only good angle they showed.
I think he means close it at the top which creates a vertical upper limit as well as horizontal limits. Then there's no question if it was in or not if it's too high.
kbee, there are always two officials, one under each upright for any field goal or extra point. Even high school games do it that way. By the way, like many posters have stated, the only reliable angle was the one from behind, and the kick looked no good from that angle. If anything, it may have gone over the upright, but that still makes it no good because the kick must go between the goal posts.
Because that's a dumb idea. @SkilletHead2, on the other hand, is spot-on. You could solve this problem with an IR spotting laser system for less than 1000 bucks per stadium.
What's dumb about it? It would cost less than $1000 (if cost is your concern) and it's fail proof, unlike the laser idea.
they knew it was more good than not....the announcers including Rece Davis seemed to push the All Cupcake Conference agenda for ''mother ship''...
Kick didn't look good to me.
What I don't think is fair is how sometimes the kicks from the hashmarks present a more difficult angle. They should do it like the NFL, where every kick seems to be from straight away, not an angle from the hashmarks. The two kicks that Indiana had at the end were from angles, the FG for Duke was from straight on.
What I don't think is fair is how sometimes the kicks from the hashmarks present a more difficult angle. They should do it like the NFL, where every kick seems to be from straight away, not an angle from the hashmarks. The two kicks that Indiana had at the end were from angles, the FG for Duke was from straight on.
For starters, it fundamentally changes the nature of the game. The conversation about where to set the bar (i.e. "how high to make the goal") becomes totally arbitrary and would be subject to disagreement and constant complaint.
And the laser idea isn't prone to failure. I don't see how you could think that. It's quite simple. It's grade school simple.
seemed more like Karma...
Just before, Oates missed a 56yarder at the end of regulation... which he takes his miss out on the holder (clearly full of emotions and needing to be held back). My religion don't let me believe in Karma, but I knew Oates would miss that controversial FG at the end...
Just before, Oates missed a 56yarder at the end of regulation... which he takes his miss out on the holder (clearly full of emotions and needing to be held back). My religion don't let me believe in Karma, but I knew Oates would miss that controversial FG at the end...
I think you're overstating the extent to which electronics fail. The reality is that electronics rarely fail, in terms of duty cycle.
And yes, putting an upper crossbar on the goalpost would fundamentally change the game. Kickers would then have to be able to put the ball into an actual box of some size to be determined by a rules committee, as agreed upon by the stakeholders. It's a messy process.
As for when electronics (not strictly lasers) became part of football, the answer with respect to the NFL is "with the implementation of GSIS 2.0".
Since it was available. You realize that people back in the day would have preferred things like this also. In my opinion sport has never been about human error. It has always been about one person or team beating another within in the rules. The only reason we have human error is because there is no better alternative.
If I was the commissioner of baseball, I would go to a computer operated strike zone ASAP. That's how little I care about the human factor
It does fundamentally change the game. What happens when an extra point hits the "upper" crossbar and bounces out? Your idea is not well thought out and other ideas, like a laser would be much better.
It is thought out because laser beams pointing at the sky are not an option in outdoor stadiums.
1. IR lasers aren't visible to the naked eye.
2. It would by definition be a low-powered, low-resolution system such that it would pose no physical danger.
3. Its vertical orientation would ensure that it would not penetrate the field of view of any overflying aircraft.
4. Most major outdoor sporting events are designated no-fly zones by the FAA.
Yeah....I know about the two officials. It was my feeble attempt at sarcasm.
FWIW, I thought that they were right and the kick was no good.
They have cameras in the pylons now, what about cameras in the top of the goal posts?
The FAA's temporary flight restriction (TFR) doesn't eliminate all flights near stadiums. Waivers to the restriction are routinely granted for blimps, banner tow planes (ask Al Golden, lol) camera crews in helicopters, etc... Even is this obstacle was overcome, I'm still not sold on the reliability. QBs and coaches are still experiencing issues with headset communication devices and they've had 20+ years to figure it out.
The key word here is "near".
No direct overflights are permitted, period.
Also, the system being discussed would not be operational throughout the game. It would be operational for a second or two, during kick attempts.
Latest posts
-
-
Basketball Rutgers Basketball wins second straight, downs USC 95-85- Latest: Chickadee34
-
